1442BULL

:
,
a
rae
2iiiii:~~
BULLETIN No. 260
MARCH 1947
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT
COSTS in NORTHERN ALABAMA
An analysis of the use and
cosE of operation of farm
tractors and workstock and
their associated equipment
on 479 Northern Alabama
farms in 1945
AGRICULTURAL
o
/e
ALABAMA
M. J. Funchess, Director
EXPERIMENT
POLYTECHNIC
STATION
INSTITUTE
Auburn, Alabama
CONTENTS
Page
AREA
SURVEYED
----
4
------------------------------------------
6
FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES-----------------------
---------- 6
AVAILABLE LABOR AND POWER ON FARMS
7
INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT ------------FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT COSTS -------------------------------
8
COST OF OPERATING FARM TRACTORS --------------------------
8
COST OF OPERATING TRACTOR-DRAWN
EQUIPMENT
-----15
COST OF KEEPING WORKSTOCK --------------------------EQUIPMENT --
24
---------------------------------------------------------------------
28
*COST OF OPERATING WORKSTOCK-DRAWN
SUMMARY
First Printing 12M
20
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT
COSTS in NORTHERN ALABAMA
BEN T. LANHAM, Jr.
Associate Agricultural Economist
GONTINUED farm labor shortages, high farm wage rates, and
recent changes in organization of farms have focused a great
many farmers' attention to the possibility of shifting to the use
of tractors and tractor equipment on their farms. Many farmers
who realize the economic possibilities of mechanizing their farming operations are already rapidly moving in that direction.
Those farmers already largely mechanized are now planning
future adjustments to utilize more efficiently the power they
now have. A third group, and perhaps the largest of the three,
is still undecided about using tractor power and tractor equipment on their farms. It is anticipated that the trend towards
more complete mechanization will continue.
Farmers are now raising questions as to the cost of operating
farm tractors and the relative accomplishments of tractors and
tractor equipment as compared to workstock as a source of power.
Since a large number of farmers in northern Alabama have
had considerable experience with tractor power in recent years,
it was felt that their experiences could make a valuable contribution with respect to what might be expected of tractor power
on farms in this and in other similar areas.
In June 1946, basic data on the use and cost of operation of
farm power and equipment were obtained from a survey' of
479 farms in this area. The farms included in the survey were
distributed as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Basic data were obtained on 112 farms operated with tractor power only, on 197
farms operated with both tractor and workstock power, and on
170 farms operated with workstock power only.
The purposes of this bulletin are (1) to present basic informa'Appreciation is expressed to R. M. Reaves and J. L. Liles, Jr., of the Alabama
Agricultural Extension Service for their helpful suggestions in planning the project,
and to all of the Extension Service personnel in northern Alabama who assisted in
the collection of the basic information upon which this study is based.
4
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
tion on the cost of operation of farm tractors, tractor equipment,
workstock, and workstock equipment; (2) to compare the requirements for major farm operations when accomplished with
different levels of power and equipment; (3) to indicate the
variations in costs that occur between farms operated with different sources of power; and (4) to indicate the variations in
power and machinery costs that occur between different typeof-farming areas in northern Alabama.
No attempt is made in this bulletin to enumerate or to explain
the possible uses of the data shown herein. It should be emphasized, however, that the data in this report are based upon
actual farmers' estimates, and that the figures, which appear
in the following tables and discussion, are averages of these estimates. They should be used as such. Variations are normally
expected to occur from year to year, or even within the same
year between individual farms. Such variations must be taken
into account in using these data.
AREA SURVEYED
The northern Alabama area included in the survey, Figures 1
and 2, represents approximately 26 per cent of the total farm
land area of the state. 2 It includes two major type-of-farming
areas and part of a third area.3
The Tennessee Valley area 4 is characterized by "heavy soils,
reasonably level topography, and numerous large holdings of
land have encouraged . . . the use of tractors and other types
of labor-saving farm implements in this area."' Crop yields are
relatively high. Agriculture is centered around cotton as the
principal cash crop. In recent years, some shift has been made
towards an increase in feed crop and livestock production; the
area "is looked upon as a very important potential livestock area."6
The Highland Rim area is a part of the Tennessee Valley typeof-farming area. It differs from the remainder of the area mainly
in its soil characteristics. Its soils are more difficult to cultivate;
they have a tendency to thaw out and warm up later in the
spring; they are more difficult to drain and are somewhat less
21940 Census.
'See Alvord, et. al., "Factors Influencing Alabama Agriculture." Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Bul. No. 250, 1941. The area descriptions in this section are based largely upon this
bulletin.
For a more complete description of the several areas, see pages 65-72.
4
This area includes part of the Coosa River Valley area of Alabama, Figures 1 and 2.
SOp. cit., page 65.
'Ibid., page 69.
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS
5
TRACTOR POWER AND EQUIPMENT
WORKSTOCK POWER AND EQUIPMENT
FIG. 1. - Distribution of sample
farms in Northern Alabama in study
of tractor power and equipment
costs, 1945.
FIG. 2. - Distribution of sample
farms in Northern Alabama in study
of workstock power and equipment
costs, 1945.
responsive to good soil treatments; and they are not inherently
as fertile as are those of the remainder of the Valley area. Highland Rim farms are generally smaller, but farmers follow the
same farming systems as in the Valley area. Crop yields are
slightly lower than on Valley soils.
The Sand Mountain area varies in topography from rugged
mountains to gently rolling plateaus. Soils are chiefly sandy,
have high water-holding capacity, and are exceptionally responsive to proper treatments of commercial fertilizers, manure, and
green manure crops. Farms are generally small family-size
units. As a rule, farmers are self-sufficient in food and feed production. Cotton is the principal cash crop. Crop yields are high.
Pastures in this area are poor; livestock, with the exception of
poultry and some hogs, are kept largely for home use.
The Upper Coastal Plain area, shown in Figures 1 and 2,
represents only about 22 per cent of this area in the state.7 The
7The data shown in this bulletin for the Upper Coastal Plain area are for the sample
area only. They may not be representative for the entire Upper Coastal Plain area of the
state.
6
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT STATION
area shown is characterized by rolling to hilly topography and
severely-eroded silt and sandy loam soils. Farms are generally
small; farming is mostly in small "patchy" fields. Cotton is the
principal cash crop. Crop yields are at about the state average.
Commercial livestock is not important. Much idle cropland exists
in the area, even on farms in active operation.
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES
AVAILABLE LABOR AND POWER ON FARMS
The permanent labor force on the northern Alabama farms
studied consisted of 2.1 families per farm in 1945, including the
operator's family. Each family handled about 47 acres of crops
in 1945. Families on farms operated with workstock only handled
30 acres of crops per family; on farms where tractor power was
used, each family handled more than 50 acres of crops. On most
farms in this area, power is supplied both by tractors and by
workstock. Within the area, the range is from all tractor power
on some farms to all workstock power on others. The process
of change to mechanical power may be quite rapid in some areas,
but farmers usually are reluctant to dispose of their workstock
when tractors are first introduced on farms.
Assuming that one tractor should replace the equivalent of
5 head of workstock, 8 farms operated with workstock only
utilized less power per crop acre than tractor operated farms.
Power available per crop acre was highest on farms where both
tractors and workstock were used; this may indicate a surplus
of power on many of these farms.
Cotton, the principal cash crop in this area, occupied fewer
acres per unit of power on farms where both tractors and workstock were used than it did on either farms operated with tractors
only or with workstock only. Variations in the acreages of other
major crops, as related to available farm power, are shown in
Table 1.
SThis study indicates that the actual replacement rate in northern Alabama has been
4.5. But on the basis of average amount of work performed in 1945, each tractor should
have replaced approximately 5.0 head of workstock.
7
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS
TABLE 1.-TOTAL AVAILABLE FARM POWER PER FARM RELATED TO NUMBER
OF FAMILIES PER FARM AND TO CROPLAND ACREAGE PER FARM
ON 479 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Type of power used
Item
Unit
TrTractorTracors W k
only workstock only
112
197
170
fams
479
Number of farms
No.
Power available per farm
Tractors
Workstock
No.
No.
1.2
0
1.2
2.8
0
2.4
.8
2.0
Total Available farm power'
Units
6.0
8.8
2.4
6.0
No. families per farm
Power available per family
Cropland acreage per farm
Cropland acreage per family
Power available per 100 acres
cropland
Crops planted per unit of power
Cotton
Corn
Small grain
All hay
Winter legumes, turned
No.
Units
1.8
3.3
2.8
3.1
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.8
Acres
Acres
100
56
143
51
44
30
98
47
Units
6.0
6.2
5.4
6.1
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
4.2
6.0
2.3
1.8
2.8
3.6
4.8
2.5
2.2
3.7
4.2
6.7
1.7
2.9
4.6
4.0
5.8
2.2
2.4
3.8
'Assumes that one tractor should replace the equivalent of 5.0 head of workstock
(based on average amount of work performed with available equipment as calculated
from the data shown in Tables 11 and 18 of this bulletin).
INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT
The 1945 inventory value of farm power and equipment on
northern Alabama farms averaged $1,447 per farm for tractor
farms, $2,094 per farm for farms using both tractors and workstock, and $603 per farm for workstock farms. This represented
an average investment of $14.47, $14.65, and $13.70 per crop acre
for the respective groups, Table 2.
In all major type-of-farming areas in northern Alabama, the
total inventory value per farm was highest on farms where both
tractors and workstock were used. In all areas the average inventory value per crop acre was lowest on farms using workstock
only. This does not necessarily indicate that the costs of operating power and equipment per crop acre will be also lowest for
this group of farms.
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
8
TABLE 2.-AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN FARM POWER AND EQUIPMENT PER FARM
AND PER CROP ACRE BY TYPE OF POWER USED ON
IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
479
FARMS
Type of power used
Tractors
only
Item
Per
farm
(Dol.)
Tractors
Tractor equipment
Workstock
Workstock equipment
Total
771
676
1,447
Per
crop
acre
(Dol.)
7.71
6.76
14.47
Tractors and
workstock
Per
Per
crop
farm
acre
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
Workstock
only
Per
Per
crop
farm
acre
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
803
592
493
206
5.62
4.14
3.45
1.44
427
176
9.70
4.00
2,094
14.65
603
13.70
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT COSTS
All of the cost data that follow are for the crop year 1945,
and are based upon a study of actual farm records obtained from
farm operators in northern Alabama in June 1946. The cost
data shown are averages and should be used as such. Considerable variation will occur between individual farms and even on
the same farm from year to year, due to variations in total investment, age and expected useful life of equipment, amount of
annual use, type of work done, efficiency of use, care in the
operation, maintenance, service and storage of equipment, and
to many other factors. The data shown here, however, may be
useful in getting the overall situation in view and in studying
the economics of farm power costs. A great many of the farmers'
questions relative to farm power costs and the relative accomplishments of different levels of power and equipment can be
answered from the data presented herein.
COST OF OPERATING FARM TRACTORS
Records on 337 individual tractors for the crop year 1945 provide the basic data from which tractor costs for this area have
been determined. Variations in the cost of operation normally
are to be expected. Such variations might be due to the size of
tractor, the proportion of full capacity used, the number of days
used per year, the type of work performed, and to the age and
estimated useful life of the tractor. Each of these factors have
FARM POWER and EQUIPMENT
COSTS
9
been related to the cost of operation and the results of these
analyses follow.
Tractors were divided into three size groups - small, medium,
and large - based on maximum rated drawbar-horsepower for
the make and model of each particular machine.9 Tractors that
were rated less than 18 horsepower were classified as small, those
rated from 18 to 24 horsepower were classified as medium, and
those rated over 24 horsepower were classified as large. The
average rated horsepower for the small group was found to be
14.7, for the medium group 20.0, and for the large group 28.9.
The distribution of tractors by size and by type-of-farming areas
as found on the farms studied in northern Alabama in 1945 is
shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.-DISTRIBUTION OF FARM TRACTORS BY SIZE IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF
NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Size
of
tractore
Small
Medium
Large
Total
Tennessee
Valley
Highland
Rim
Sand
Mountain
PerPer
cent
U. Coastal
Plain
No.
Per
cent
63
87
62
30
41
29
9
4
2
60
27
13
43
16
13
60
22
18
25
8
5
212
100
15
100
72
100
38
cent
All
areas
No.
Per
cent
66
22
12
140
115
82
42
34
24
100
337
100
cent
1See Appendix Table A.
This table indicates that less than one-third of the tractors in
the Tennessee Valley area are small tractors, whereas nearly
two-thirds of the tractors in all other northern Alabama areas are
small tractors. This variation has a marked effect upon the average cost of operation of tractors for the several areas.
The costs per 10-hour day for operating tractors of different
sizes are summarized in Table 4. Total operating costs are made
up of two types: (1) cash costs, and (2) overhead or "fixed"
costs. Each of these should be carefully considered by the farmer.
The cash costs are influenced by the size of tractor, the type of
work done, and the days of annual use. Overhead costs are influenced mainly by the purchase price, the age and expected
useful life of the tractor, and the number of days of use. Annual
overhead costs represent an item of cost that must be covered
regardless of the number of days the tractor is used each year.
'Based on Official Nebraska Tractor Tests, as reported in "The Tractor Field Book,"
Farm Implement News Co., Chicago, Ill., 1946. Also see Appendix Table A.
10
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
TABLE 4.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE TRACTORS
PER 10-HOUR DAY IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Item
Unit
No. of tractors
Av. rated drawbar horsepower
Av. purchase price
Present age
Est. total useful life
Cost per 10-hr. day
Cash costs'
Fuel (gas or fuel oil)
Grease, oil, filters
Repairs and new tires
Service labor
Total cash costs
Overhead costs
2
Depreciation
Interest'
Taxes, housing, ins.
Total overhead costs
4
Total cost per 10-hour day
Hours used per year
On farm
Custom work
Total
4
Total cost per hour'
Total cost per year 4
No.
H.P.
Dol.
Yr.
Yr.
Av. of all farms operating
Small
Medium
Large tractors
tractors
tractors
tractors
140
14.7
842
4
11
115
20.0
1,111
5
13
1.59
.26
.87
.22
2.94
1.97
.45
1.12
.32
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
1.01
.34
.14
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
82
28.9
1,260
5
12
337
20.0
1,036
5
12
1.95
.41
.98
.28
3.86
2.54
.62
.97
.31
4.44
3.62
.92
.36
.29
1.04
.38
.30
.98
.36
.26
1.49
1.57
1.72
1.60
i
4.43
5.43
6.16
5.22
s
Hr.
Hr.
557
124
786
56
Hr.
681
842
Dol.
Dol.
.44
301.81
814
93
697
96
907
793
.54
.62
.52
456.99
558.38
413.90
1Gasoline $0.199 per gallon, fuel oil $0.104 per gallon, lubricating oil $0.190 per quart,
grease $0.145 per pound, oil filters $0.66 each, service labor $0.41 per hour, and repairs
and new tires as reported by farmers.
2Purchase price less 10 per cent (for trade-in-value) divided by the estimated total
years of useful life.
'One-half of the purchase price plus 10 per cent (for trade-in-value) multiplied by 5
per 4cent.
Exclusive of the wages paid or value of the labor of the tractor driver.
In comparing tractor costs by sizes, particular attention should
be given to the fact that large tractors develop more horsepower;
and, when used with the proper size of equipment, they will
accomplish more work in a given amount of time than will small
tractors.
A detailed breakdown of the costs of operation for tractors
by size groups is given in Table 4. All tractors averaged $3.62
per 10-hour day for cash costs. Fuel comprised over 50 per cent
of this amount. Cash costs per 10-hour day of use increased as
the size of tractor increased. On many farms service labor may
not be a direct cash expense because some farmers will drive
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
COSTS
11
and service their own tractors. Annual repair costs per tractor
in northern Alabama were high in 1945, amounting to an average
of 98 cents per 10-hour day of use for all tractors. Most of the
explanation for this high cost is apparently due to lack of proper
care in operation and storage of tractors, lack of timeliness of
repairs and lubrication, and to some extent to the age of tractors
and the topography of the land on which they are used. Most
tractors in operation in 1945 were relatively old machines, and
were probably being used more than in normal times. Shortages
of repair parts due to the war increased repair costs and needs.
Repair costs are also affected by the amount of annual use and
by the experience of the operator.
Overhead costs (depreciation, interest on investment, taxes,
housing, and insurance) averaged $1.60 per 10-hour day of use
for all tractors. Few tractors are used to the point where only
junk value remains. Most tractors are traded in on new ones
before they are completely worn out. A trade-in value of 10
per cent of the new cost was assumed in figuring depreciation.
Annual depreciation was based on farmers' estimates of the useful
life of the tractors and the average purchase price minus 10
per cent. The interest rate used was 5 per cent. This rate is
less than is usually paid by farmers when machinery is purchased
on a credit arrangement. However, it is more than farmers can
realize by investing their money elsewhere in normal times, and
is more than farmers would generally pay on long-time loans.
In computing interest charges, it was assumed that dealers would
make an average concession of about 10 per cent from list prices
of new tractors in the form of trade-in values for old ones. The
annual interest charge, therefore, was based on 5 per cent of
one-half of the new cost plus 10 per cent. Costs of taxes, housing,
and insurance are farmers' estimates.
Total operating costs per 10-hour day averaged $5.22 for all
tractors. On an hourly basis, total operating costs for small
tractors amounted to 44 cents, medium tractors 54 cents, and
large tractors 62 cents. In 1945, small-tractors were used 681
hours, medium tractors 842 hours, and large tractors 907 hours.
Tractor costs were higher on farms where both tractors and
workstock were used than on farms operated with tractors only.
The data in Table 5 indicate that the cost per hour of use
amounted to 56 cents where both tractors and workstock were
used but was only 46 cents where tractors were the only source of
12
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
TABLE 5.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING TRACTORS RELATED TO TYPE OF POWER
USED ON FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Item
Type of power used on farms
Tractor power Tractors and
only
workstock
Unit
203
20.7
134
19.0
No. of tractors
Av. rated drawbar horsepower
Cost per 10-hour day
Cash costs
Overhead costs
Total
Hours used per year
On farm
Custom work
Total
No.
H.P.
Costs per hour used
Total annual costs
Dol.
.46
.56
Dol.
384.68
429.23
Dol.
Dol
3.29
1.36
3.85
1.71
Dol.
4.65
5.56
693
79
772
703
122
825
Hr.
Hr.
Hr.
power. This difference is due both to the difference in average
rated horsepower of the two groups and to the number of days
used as shown in Table 5.
By type-of-farming areas, tractor costs were highest in the
Tennessee Valley area and lowest in the Upper Coastal Plain
area of northern Alabama. The Valley area had larger tractors
on the average than any other area, Table 6. Farms in this
TABLE 6.-AVERAGE COST OF OPERATING TRACTORS IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF
NORTHERN
ALABAMA, 1945
Item
Unit
No. of tractors
Av. rated drawbar horsepower
Costs per 10-hour day
Cash costs
Overhead costs
Total
Hours used per year
On farm
Custom work
Total
Cost per hour used
Total annual costs
No.
H.P.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Hr.
Hr.
Hr.
U.
Sand
Tennessee Highland Mountain
Coastal
Rim
Valley Valley
Rim
Mountain Plain
212
21.0
4.17
1.59
5.76
15
72
38
18.3
18.7
17.1
3.47
1.61
5.08
2.31
1.21
3.52
599
248
847
475
205
680
573
139
712
797
27
824
2.89
1.80
4.69
Dol.
.58
.51
.47
.35
Dol.
474.30
361.90
318.96
298.10
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
13
COSTS
area were also larger than in other areas; consequently, tractors
were used more hours per farm in the Valley than in other areas.
Custom work was lowest in the Valley area and highest in the
Upper Coastal Plain area.
The effects of the proportion of the full horsepower capacity
of tractors utilized on the average cost of operation is indicated
by the data on fuel requirements, Table 7. Total operating costs
will be higher when tractors are used for heavy drawbar work,
such as breaking, disking, and bedding, than when used for such
TABLE 7.--AVERAGE FUEL AND OIL REQUIREMENTS PER 10-HOUR DAY FOR
TRACTORS WITH HEAVY AND LIGHT DRAWBAR LOADS AND FOR BELT
WORK IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Requirements per 10-hour day
traNctors
Small tractors
Medium tractors
Large tractors
All tractors
Heavy load'
Light Load 2
Belt work
(No.)
Fuel
(Gal.)
Oil
(Qt.)
Fuel
(Gal.)
Oil
(Qt.)
Fuel Oil
(Gal.) (Qt.)
140
115
82
337
12.4
17.7
24.1
17.1
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.2
8.6
13.1
18.0
12.4
.8
1.3
1.2
1.1
8.6
13.5
17.0
11.7
'Includes breaking, disking, bedding, etc.
2Includes planting, cultivating, combining, mowing, harrowing,
.8
1.5
1.1
1.1
etc.
light drawbar work as planting, cultivating, and mowing or for
belt work. On the average, from 34 to 46 per cent more fuel
was consumed when tractors were doing heavy drawbar work
than when doing light drawbar or belt work. Variations in oil
consumption were of a lesser degree than fuel consumption.
Calculations of the total operating costs in dollars were not
attempted because of the difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory
method for allocation of overhead costs, repairs, and service labor
costs where tractors were used for both heavy and light drawbar
work.
Operating costs of tractors per 10-hour day depend not only
on the size of the tractor and the type of work done, but also
on the number of days used during the year. The relationship
between the number of days used per year and the cost of
operating tractors per 10-hour day is shown in Table 8. A total
of 54 tractors was used less than 40 days a year at an average
cost of 95 cents an hour. One hundred and thirty-four tractors
were used from 40 to 80 days at an average cost of 64 cents an
14
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
hour. Ninety-six tractors were used from 80 to 120 days at an
average cost of 51 cents an hour. The fifty-three tractors used
120 days and over were operated at a cost of 37 cents an hour.
Variations in cost per hour for different sizes of tractors in relation
to number of days used followed the same general pattern as
shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8.-COST PER 10-HOUR
NUMBER
OF
Days used per year
Under 40
40- 79
80-119
120 and over
All tractors
DAY FOR OPERATING
DAYS USED PER
YEAR IN
No. of Av. days
tractors
used
TRACTORS
NORTHERN
RELATED TO
ALABAMA,
Cost per 10-hour day
Cash Overhead Total
(No.)
54
(Days)
27
(Dol.)
5.36
(Dol.)
4.12
134
96
59
96
4.29
3.70
53
154
337
79
1945
Cost per
hour
(Dol.)
9.48
(Dol.)
.95
2.11
1.42
6.40
5.12
.64
.51
2.84
.86
3.70
.37
3.62
1.60
5.22
.52
Farmers who plan to replace workstock with tractors should
take these variations into account. On small farms, it should
be remembered that some additional use may be made of tractors
by engaging in custom work. The possibilities of such a system
,are indicated by the data on custom work given in Table 6.
In the Tennessee Valley area, where farms are generally large,
custom work made up less than 4 per cent of total annual use of
tractors. In other areas, where farms are generally small, custom
work amounted to 20 to 30 per cent of the total annual tractor
use. Farmers operating small units should also recognize that a
small farm tractor may be too large for the size of farm they
are operating. Data on custom work in Table 4 indicate one
possibility of increasing the annual use of such a tractor. In
northern Alabama small tractors in 1945 were used twice as
many days for custom work as were tractors in the two larger
groups. Custom work made up nearly 20 per cent of the annual
total for small tractors, but averaged less than 10 per cent for
the two larger groups.
Northern Alabama farmers strongly prefer having tractors
mounted on rubber tires to those mounted on steel. This study
shows that 311 tractors were mounted on rubber and only 26
or 7.7 per cent of the total were on steel. Farmers estimated
that the expected life of rubber tires on rear wheels would be
5.2 years and on front wheels 4.2 years.
In general, farmers'
estimates show that tires on small tractors will last longer than
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
15
COSTS
those on large tractors. Variations in farmers' estimates for different sizes of tractors by areas are shown in Table 9. The variation in the life of tires is dependent both upon the extent of
annual use, and on the treatment and care given to proper service,
use, and storage of tires on tractors.
TABLE 9.-ESTIMATED LIFE OF RUBBER TIRES ON TRACTORS BY SIZE OF TRACTOR
IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Size of tractor
Area
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
(Yr.)
5.4
4.7
4.8
5.6
4.1
4.6
4.6
5.5
5.2
4.6
5.9
6.3
3.9
6.2
5.7
4.9
5.3
3.2
5.0
4.7
4.8
5.0
3.8
6.4
4.6
3.0
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.4
5.4
5.0
4.4
5.8
5.2
4.0
4.7
4.2
5.1
4.2
Tennessee Valley
Highland Rim
Sand Mountain
Upper Coastal Plain
All areas
All
tractors
Large
Medium
Small
Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear Front
wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels wheels
CosTs OF OPERATING TRACTOR-DRAWN EQUIPMENT
Tractor costs make up only a part of the mechanization analysis. To complete the picture requires an appraisal of the costs
of operating the equipment used in conjunction with the tractor.
The expense for farm machinery upkeep and repairs is usually
a substantial item on most tractor farms. In this study, data were
obtained and analyzed on the cost of operating individual pieces
of farm equipment. The results of this analysis on an annual
cost basis are summarized in Table 10.
Tractor-drawn equipment costs per acre covered and per hour
used are shown for individual pieces of equipment in Table 11.
The usual rates for performing different operations with tractors
and with different levels and types of tractor equipment are
also given in Table 11. The rates shown are averages. Considerable variation occurs in actual practice, depending upon the size
of tractor, the topography of cropland, the experience of the
operator, and many other factors. Some of the rates of performance for tractor equipment in Table 11 may change in the
future as farmers gain additional experience in handling tractors
and tractor equipment. The data shown can be made quite
useful by farmers, however, in studying the sizes and types of
equipment they may wish to purchase or use, and in making
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
16
TABLE 10.--AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF
OPERATING TRACTOR EQUIPMENT ON 309 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Av. annual cost per
Total
Av.
pur- Pres- est. Repair
Type of equipment chase ent
useand
DeInterup- precia- e
ful
price' age
2
est
tion'
keep
life
TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS:
f.-Tandem disk
Plow, 1-bottom
Plow, 2-bottom
Plow, 3-bottom
Plow, 1-disk
Plow, 2-disk
Plow, 3-disk
Plow, 4-disk
Plow, 5-disk
Harrow, disk
Harrow, spike tooth
Harrow, spring tooth
Cultipacker
Drag, home-made
Tillage tool
( Dol.) (Yr.) (Yr.) (Dol.) (Dol.)
Planter, 1-row
Planter, 2-row
Grain drill
CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT:
Cultivator, 1-row
t. Cultivator, 2-row
Cultivator, 4-row
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
5
6
5
6
4
4
12
18
15
17
13
13
13
13
8
12
12
11
15
10
11
13.29
9.46
15.66
26.96
4.75
15.20
39.81
24.81
6.67
10.06
1.39
3.56
4.72
.96
5.98
11.92
3.95
8.34
12.92
8.52
11.91
17.24
15.23
23.97
10.68
2.55
2.21
6.42
1.80
11.45
98
160
190
3
5
7
12
12
16
2.61
8.27
12.28
7.35
12.00
10.69
2.69
4.40
5.22
.41
.95
2.00
13.06
25.62
30.19
84
157
300
4
5
7
13
14
14
7.13
14.15
65.00
5.82
10.09
19.28
2.31
4.32
8.25
.48
1.24
.00
15.74
29.80
92.53
603
773
865
561
129
144
160
74
162
4
4
4
2
5
5
5
7
3
10
9
9
9
13
13
12
15
12
32.06
64.13
74.05
12.25
8.76
11.99
18.58
2.44
10.99
54.27
77.30
86.50
56.10
8.93
9.97
12.00
4.44
12.15
16.58
21.26
23.79
15.43
3.55
3.96
4.40
2.03
4.45
6.70 109.61
7.17 169.86
2.97 187.31
1.08 84.86
.54 21.78
1.61 27.53
.83 35.81
.47
9.38
.51 28.10
588
145
166
36
6
8
5
6
15
17
15
17
22.30
5.00
3.07
1.71
35.28
7.68
9.96
1.91
16.17
3.99
4.56
.99
1.17
1.92
1.55
.56
74.92
18.59
19.14
5.17
13
12
19
13
10
14
2.79
11.58
3.26
13.69
1.40
1.92
5.33
10.95
5.45
13.50
5.22
3.92
2.12
4.02
3.16
5.36
1.60
1.68
.37
.41
.68
1.41
.39
.33
10.61
26.96
12.55
33.96
8.61
7.85
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT:
Combine, small
Combine, medium
Combine, large
--Corn picker
Mower, 4-5 feet
Mower, 6 feet
Mower, 7 feet
Rake, dump or sulky
Rake, side delivery
STATIONARY MACHINES:
Hay baler
Feed grinder, burr
Hammer mill
Wood saw, portable
VEHICLES AND
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT:
Trailer, 2-wheel
Trailer, 4-wheel
Wagon, 2-horse
Manure spreader
Lime spreader
Stalk cutter, 2-row
(Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.)
4.37
.36 29.94
2.17
.41 15.99
3.82
1.08 28.90
6.71
1.60 48.19
3.63
.81 17.71
4.73
.92 32.76
6.84
1.24 65.13
6.05
2.12 48.21
5.86
.25 36.75
3.87
.87 25.48
.93
.27
5.14
.74
.06
6.57
2.94
.62 14.70
.55
.25
3.56
3.85
.52 21.80
159
79
139
244
123
172
249
220
213
141
34
27
107
20
140
PLANTING EQUIPMENT:
*
machine
Taxes
housing2 Total
ins.
77
146
115
195
58
61
2'Based on original new cost.
Based on farmers' estimates of new parts, replacement items, repair costs, and
service labor.
3Purchase price less 10 per cent (for trade-in value) divided by the estimated total
years
of useful life.
4
One-half of the purchase price plus 10 per cent (for trade-in value) multiplied by
5 per cent.
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
17
COSTS
TABLE 11.-AVERAGE ANNUAL USE, RATES OF PERFORMANCE, AND COSTS PER
UNIT OF PERFORMANCE FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
ON 309 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
No.
Type of equipment
Annual use Acres Hours
ofAcres Hours
urper
items cov'd used
day
acre
(No.) (Acres) (Hr.) (Acres)
(Hr.)
Cost
per
acre
Cost
per
hour
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS:
Tandem disk
Plow, 1-bottom
Plow, 2-bottom
Plow, 3-bottom
Plow, 1-disk
Plow, 2-disk
Plow, 3-disk
Plow, 4-disk
Plow, 5-disk
Harrow, disk
Harrow, spike tooth
Harrow, spring tooth
Cultipacker
Drag, home-made
Tillage tool
30
15
50
5
4
192
39
4
3
248
110
12
51
16
10
205
61
107
300
65
134
146
139
155
175
158
154
169
183
66
129
119
157
236
144
220
172
133
105
112
65
92
73
94
48
15.9
5.1
6.8
12.6
4.5
6.1
8.5
10.5
14.7
15.7
24.1
16.6
23.1
19.5
13.9
.63
1.96
1.47
.79
2.22
1.64
1.18
.96
.68
.64
.41
.60
.43
.51
.72
.15
.27
.27
.16
.27
.25
.45
.35
.24
.15
.04
.04
.09
.02
.33
.24
.14
.18
.20
.12
.15
.38
.36
.35
.23
.08
.07
.20
.04
.45
38
106
43
53
119
126
50
70
70
10.6
16.9
17.8
.94
.59
.56
.25
.22
.24
.26
.37
.43
64
182
3
103
228
533
112
128
160
9.2
17.8
33.3
1.09
.56
.30
.15
.13
.17
.14
.23
.58
37
45
21
4
27
29
45
37
10
55
85
83
177
71
70
120
51
149
81
113
112
221
49
46
66
29
65
6.8
7.5
7.4
8.0
14.4
15.2
18.3
17.8
23.4
1.47
1.33
1.35
1.25
.69
.66
.55
.56
.43
1.99
2.00
2.26
.48
.31
.39
.30
.18
.19
1.35
1.50
1.67
.38
.44
.60
.54
.32
.43
21
14
45
64
--
94
-
--
-
86
--
--
97
-
-
52
-
.
PLANTING EQUIPMENT:
Planter, 1-row
Planter, 2-row
Grain drill
CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT:
Cultivator, 1-row
Cultivator, 2-row
Cultivator, 4-row
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT:
Combine, small
Combine, medium
Combine, large
Corn picker
Mower, 4-5 feet
Mower, 6 feet
Mower, 7 feet
Rake, dump or sulky
Rake, side 'delivery
STATIONARY MACHINES:
Hay baler
Feed grinder, burr
Hammer mill
Wood saw, portable
_
__
.80
.22
.20
.10
VEHICLES AND
MISCELLANEOUS
EQUIPMENT:
Trailer, 2-wheel
Trailer, 4-wheel
Wagon, 2-horse
Manure spreader
Lime spreader
Stalk cutter, 2-row
80
8
42
12
28
18
-65
46
88
175
336.
122
135
36
33
..
..
4.8
12.7
26.3
2.08
.79
.38
.52
.19
.09
06
08
.10
.25
.24
.24
18
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
farm plans for adjustments in organization or of shifting from
workstock power to tractor power.
The data in Table 11 indicate, in general, that as more work
is done with a particular machine its average cost per unit of
use declines. These data show that larger machines usually accomplish more work in a given amount of time, that costs per
acre are usually lower, and that costs per hour are usually higher
than with smaller machines.
Much of the tractor-drawn equipment on northern Alabama
farms is used only for a short period each year, and this is usually
far below the maximum possible use. If the amount of use of
such equipment were increased, the cost per acre would be
reduced. On some individual farms it was found that some equipment costs were higher per acre than had the work been hired
on a custom basis. This might be due to one of two reasons:
Either the farmer desired to be completely independent of
others, or he may not have been aware of the true costs per
unit of service.
The most effective means of lowering costs per acre and costs
per hour is to increase the annual use of implements. This does
not suggest increasing the acreage on which the machines are
used on the operator's farm, provided the most profitable combination of enterprises already exists on the farm. However,
when the acreage on the operator's farm is insufficient, costs
may be lowered by cooperative use of machines. Such cooperation may be accomplished (1) by joint ownership and use with
others, (2) by renting machines and furnishing his own power,
or (3) by hiring the work done on a custom basis where the
machine, power, and labor are all furnished.
Some farmers with limited resources and only a small amount
of annual need for a machine, may find a profitable opportunity
in purchasing dependable second-hand equipment to lower their
machinery investment. Such equipment, however, must fit the
type and size of power available and the size of enterprises on
which it is to be used. Particular care should be taken in buying
only serviceable machines.
Since depreciation makes up a large part of the total costs
of machinery operation, an attempt to extend the useful life of
each machine through better care will often prove to be a worthwhile means of lowering costs. Also, timeliness of making re-
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
19
COSTS
pairs and necessary lubrication are important in keeping down
repair and upkeep costs.
What do the total farm machinery operating costs per farm
for tractor-drawn machinery amount to each year in this area?
Total annual costs per farm (exclusive of power and labor costs)
will depend upon: (1) total investment in farm machinery;
(2) age, expected useful life, and state of repair of each implement; (3) efficiency with which each implement is operated;
(4) annual use of each implement; and (5) care taken in properly
servicing, operating, and storing each implement.
MACHINERY ON FARMS
TABLE 12.-COST OF OPERATING ALL TRACTOR-DRAWN
IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945'
On farms operated with
tractor power only
On farms operated with
workstock
Cost
Cost
Annual
per
Cost
per
hour
cost
acrecre
in
of
per
farm tractorcrops
cropuse
use
(Dol)
(Dol.)
94
112
38
.095
.113
.038
.94
1.12
.38
11
.011
.257
(Dol.)
Repairs and upkeep
Depreciation
Interest
Taxes, housing,
insurance
Total
255
Cost
Annual
per
per
hour
cost
in
of
per
farm tractorcrops
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
73
87
29
.079
.094
.031
.51
.61
.20
.11
8
2.55
197
.009
.213
.06
1.38
'Excludes tractor and labor costs.
The total farm machinery operating costs for tractor-drawn
equipment averaged $255 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945
for farms operated only with tractors, Table 12. Where both tractors and workstock were used, tractor-drawn machinery costs
averaged $197 per farm. Average expenses amounted to $2.55 per
crop acre, and to 26 cents per hour of tractor use on farms operated only with tractors. But where both tractors and workstock
were used, average expenses were $1.38 per crop acre, and 21
cents per hour of tractor use. This reduction in expense per crop
acre was due both to a smaller investment in tractor-drawn equipment in the latter group and also to its larger average acreage of
cropland per farm.
20
ALABAMA
COSTS OF
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
KEEPING WORKSTOCK
Records from 367 farms on 952 head of workstock for the
crop year 1945 provide the basic data from which workstock
costs for northern Alabama have been determined. Approximately 90 per cent of all records on workstock were on mules.
Records were obtained only on workstock that were on the
surveyed farms throughout the crop year 1945 and that were
used for some type of field work or general farm work during
the year. Variations between farms in workstock costs are normally expected to occur from year to year and even within the
same year. Such variations might be due to changes in the level
of feed prices alone. They may also be due to differences in
the age, expected work life and value of workstock, number of
days used annually, type of work performed, kind and amount
of feed fed, and to many other factors.
Total annual net cost per head for all workstock surveyed in
northern Alabama was $227.06 in 1945. Table 13 shows that
feed costs made up $169.54 or nearly 70 per cent of the total.
Corn and legume hay were the main sources of feed. The average amount reported fed per head in 1945 was the equivalent
of 66 bushels of corn and 2 tons of legume hay. 10 Because feed
costs in this area make up three-fourths of the total annual
costs, they represent the chief factor in determining cost variations. Workstock costs per acre or per hour of use depend both
upon the prices and rates of feeding and on the annual use
per head. A sharp change in feed prices (or value) would have
a direct influence on workstock costs in the same direction as
the price change.
Chore labor, which represents the time spent in caring for
workstock, was valued by farmers at $46.91 per head. Farmers
estimated they spent an average of 168 hours for chore labor
per head in 1945 and estimated its value at 28 cents per hour.
Depreciation amounted to 5 per cent of the annual workstock
costs. The average value of workstock in 1945 was estimated by
farmers to be $177 per head." The estimated years of useful
life was 17, resulting in a depreciation cost of $10.41 per head
lOThis represents farmers' estimates of feed fed. A feed balance sheet was not used
in obtaining these estimates. It is likely that these estimates, therefore, are somewhat
higher than would normally exist in this area.
"xEstimated 1945 value was used to eliminate the wide differences in purchase price
of workstock that existed between pre-war and war-time prices of workstock.
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
21
COSTS
annually or of 6 per cent of the 1945 value. Harness costs
amounted to $5.86 per head annually. Interest at 5 per cent of
one-half of the 1945 value amounted to $4.42 per head. All
other costs, including taxes, housing, insurance, veterinary fees,
medicine, and shoeing, amounted to $9.28 per head annually.
Credit for manure"2 amounted to $19.35 per head. Variations in
annual workstock costs per head between farms operated with
workstock only and those operated with both workstock and
tractors are shown in detail in Table 13.
TABLE 13.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HEAD IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Item
No. of farms
No. of workstock
Present age
Est. total work life
Average weight
Av. value (1945)
Annual costs
Unit
Av. of all farms operated withAll
Workstock
Workstock
farms
only
and tractors
-- - ---
No.
No.
Yr.
Yr.
Lb.
Dol.
r
197
550
9
17
1,095
176
170
402
9
18
1,041
178
367
952
9
17
1,068
177
Feed'
92.85
68.99
7.68
.02
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
98.49
69.21
7.15
.03
174.88
89.00
68.81
8.16
.01
165.98
169.54
Other costs
Harness
Chore labor 2
Depreciation
Interest'
Taxes, housing, ins.
Miscellaneous'
Total costs
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
5.79
47.89
9.88
4.45
3.78
5.43
252.10
5.91
46.09
10.35
4.40
3.76
5.56
242.05
5.85
46.91
10.41
4.42
3.77
5.51
246.41
Credit for manure5
Net annual costs
10-hour days worked
Dol.
Dol.
Days
19.35
232.75
76
19.35
222.70
48
19.35
227.06
61
Cost per 10-hour day worked
Cost per hour worked
Dol.
Dol.
3.06
.31
4.64
.46
3.72
.37
All grain
All hay
All pasture
Other
Total
'Value
as reported by farmers multiplied by farmers' estimates of the amount of
each specified feed fed per head.
2Average value (1945) divided by estimated total years of work life.
'One-half of the average value (1945) multiplied by 5 per cent.
4
lncludes veterinary fees, medicine, cost of shoeing, and other miscellaneous cash
expenses.
5
Represents the N-P-K content of 60 per cent of the annual production from a 1000pound animal multiplied by current (1945) values of N-P-K as fertilizers.
"Represents the current (1945) value of the N-P-K
annual production of a 1,000 pound animal.
content of 60 per cent of the
22
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION
This study indicates that workstock were used, on the average,
for a total of 61 days or 610 hours per year, including all hauling
and other general farm work. Based on 1945 costs and credits,
as shown in Table 13, workstock costs per hour of use amounted
to 37 cents. On farms operated with workstock only the cost
per hour was 31 cents, whereas on farms using both workstock
and tractors for power, workstock costs amounted to 46 cents
an hour. This difference was due largely to the difference in
the number of hours of annual use between the two groups.
Farmers who used workstock only reported approximately 60
per cent greater use of workstock per head annually than operators who used both workstock and tractors on their farms. This
may mean that some farms using both power sources, have a
surplus of power on the farm.
Results of this study indicate that where both tractors and
workstock are available on farms, the bulk of the land preparation is done with tractors, while workstock are used for the bulk
of the planting and cultivating. This situation may have developed partly because of the shortage of certain types of tractor
equipment during the war years. Also, on many farms the use
of tractors is relatively new. Farmers are often slow in disposing
of their workstock until they are sure they can handle all of their
farming operations with tractor power. Some farmers, too, have
not fully made the necessary adjustments in their cropping systems and organization of their labor to enable them to dispose
of their workstock.
It is expected, however, that the shift to tractors will continue
at an increasing rate as more tractors and tractor-drawn equipment become available. Maintaining farm incomes at a level
sufficiently high to encourage more widespread commercial agricultural production will promote the most rapid increase in the
adoption of tractors and other labor-saving machinery on northern
Alabama farms. In this case, workstock costs would remain high
and displacement of workstock would continue at an increasing
rate. Farmers in northern Alabama probably will not buy additional workstock if tractors and tractor equipment are available.
Workstock costs per hour of use were highest in the Tennessee
Valley and Sand Mountain areas. This was due both to the
relatively low number of days used annually and to high annual
feed costs. Farmers in these areas reported higher feeding rates
FARM
POWER
TABLE
and
EQUIPMENT
14.-WORKSTOCK
23
COSTS
COSTS PER HEAD
IN
SPECIFIED AREAS
OF
NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Item
Highland
Unit Tennessee
Valley
Rim
Valley
Rim
Sand
Upper
Mountain
Coastal
Mountain
Plain
No. of farms
No.
170
35
107
55
No. of workstock
No.
454
71
281
146
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
172.58
42.96
10.06
4.5.2
3.81
6.05
6.44
246.42
19.35
170.03
33.46
8.55
3.85
3.54
6.37
4.80
230.60
19.35
174.01
58.55
10.33
4.65
3.86
5.55
5.00
261.95
19.35
156.41
48.18
8.20
4.10
3.64
5.91
4.20
230.64
19.35
Dol.
227.07
211.25
242.60
211.29
Annual costs
Feed
Chore labor
Depreciation
Interest
Taxes, housing, ins.
Harness
Miscellaneous
Total
Credit for manure
Net annual costs
10-hour days worked
Cost per 10-hour day
Cost per hour worked
Feed fed annually
Corn
Legume hay
Days
Dol.
Dol.
Bu.
Ton
53
75
62
4.28
2.82
.43
.28
68
2.0
53
2.6
3.91
.39
71
1.8
74
2.86
.29
67
1.8
per head annually for grain than did farmers in other areas.
Total annual costs per head, as shown in Table 14, were highest
in the Sand Mountain area. Other than high feed costs, a major
factor contributing to this high total cost was chore labor. Farmers
in this area devoted an average of 183 hours per head annually
to chore labor, and valued such labor at 82 cents an hour. The
fact that Sand Mountain farmers devote nearly 10 per cent more
time to chore labor for workstock than do other farmers in
northern Alabama is probably because it is a usual practice in
this area to feed work animals in a dry lot throughout most of
the year. Pastures are very poor when available on farms. This
may also partly explain the high feeding rates followed by Sand
Mountain farmers.
Workstock costs per hour of use decreased as the number of
hours worked increased in all areas of northern Alabama, as
shown in Table 15. On farms where workstock were used less
than 500 hours annually, the costs per hour of use amounted to
$1.04. On farms where workstock were used 1,100 hours or
more, the costs were only 17 cents per hour. Data in Table 16
ALABAMA
24
TABLE
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
15.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HOUR RELATED TO NUMBER OF
USED IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
No. of hours
worked
0- 499
500- 699
700- 899
900-1,099
1,100 and over
All farms
HOURS
Tennessee
Sand
Upper Coastal
Highland
Valley LU Rim
Plain
)Vr9 Mountain
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
1.06
2.00
.96
.80
.39
.32
.44
.35
.34
.32
.29
.24
.23
.25
.26
.31
.14
.18
.19
.18
.43
.28
.39
.29
TABLE 16.-WORKSTOCK COSTS PER HOUR RELATED TO NUMBER OF HOURS
USED BY TYPE OF POWER USED ON FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
No. of hours
worked
r\l r~-*rrrrrr~
0- 499
500- 699
700- 899
900-1,099
1,100 and over
All farms
Type of power used on farms
All
Workst ock
Workstock and
only
tractors
farms
(Dol.
)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
.63
1.15
1.04
.39
.38
.39
.29
.31
.30
S.24
.26
.25
.18
.15
.17
U
.31
.46
.37
show the variations in workstock costs per hour when related
to number of hours used by type of power on farms in this area.
CosTs OF OPERATING WORKSTOCK-DRAWN EQUIPMENT
Total annual costs of operating different types and sizes of
workstock-drawn equipment on 867 northern Alabama farms in
1945 are summarized for individual pieces of equipment in
Table 17.
Workstock-drawn equipment costs per acre covered and per
hour used in 1945 are shown in Table 18. The usual rates for
performing different operations with workstock and different
levels of workstock equipment are also given in Table 18. These
rates are averages and should be used as such. Considerable
variation may occur in these rates and costs from year to year,
or even within the same year between different farms. Such
variation might be due to topography, soil conditions, amount of
use, experience of the operator, and to many other factors. These
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
COSTS
FARM~ POWsER and EQUIPMENT
TABLE
25
COSTS
2
17.-AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL COST
OPERATING SPECIFIED TYPES OF WORKSTOCK EQUIPMENT ON
367 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
OF
Av. annual cost per implement
Tpofequipment
poAV.
Present
chs
use-
price1 age
life
(Dol.)
est.lRepairD
ful
huTaxs
and
est 4
u-preia2
keep
0
angd
ins.'
oa
(Yr.) (Yr.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.) (Dol.)
22.90
5
10
2.74
2.29
.57
.25
5.85
9.14
Turn plow, 1-horse
Turn plow, 2-horse 19.54
42.81
Disk plow
Middlebuster, 1-horse 7.92
Middlebuster,
2-horse
16.36
44.93
Harrow, disk
21.92
Harrow, section
Roller
36.85
Drag, home-made
9.85
9
8
11
14
20
18
19
25
2.93
7.19
5.37
1.96
.46
1.08
2.25
.31
.23
.49
1.07
.20
.18
.39
.85
.16
3.80
9.15
9.54
2.63
10
11
9
4
5
20
18
17
12
10
2.15
3.39
2.31
2.49
1.60
.82
2.50
1.29
3.07
.98
.41
1.12
.55
.92
.25
.33
.90
.44
.74
.20
3.71
7.91
4.59
7.22
3.03
25.29
106.39
9.91
25.83
60.10
8
7
6
6
6
16
15
12
13
13
3.14
6.08
2.85
2.30
3.92
1.58
7.09
.83
1.99
4.62
.63
2.66
.25
.65
1.50
.51
2.13
.20
.52
1.20
5.86
17.96
4.13
5.46
11.24
7.99
7.31
8
11
16
22
2.92
1.69
.50
.33
.20
.18
.16
.15
3.78
2.35
3.76
18.78
15.84
86.75
59.19
63.00
8
3
7
10
9
8
17
14
17
18
17
15
3.10
2.25
2.94
6.69
7.12
5.40
.22
1.34
.93
4.82
3.48
4.20
.09
.47
.40
2.17
1.48
1.57
.08
.37
.32
1.73
1.18
1.26
3.49
4.43
4.59
15.41
13.26
12.43
100.51
46.23
9
10
17
19
8.09
1.75
5.91
2.43
2.51
1.16
2.01
.93
18.52
6.27
143.00
Hay baler, stat.
Lime spreader
40.00
Wagon, 2-horse
101.10
Stalk cutter, 1-row 38.42
Stalk cutter, 2-row 28.87
Slip scoop
6.90
12
3
11
9
11
8
21 13.28
1.01
11
20 10.09
16
2.73
19
2.53
16 r\~ .77
6.81
3.64
5.05
2.40
1.52
.43
3.57
1.00
2.53
.96
.72
.17
2.86
.80
2.02
.77
.58
.14
26.52
6.45
19.69
6.86
5.35
1.51
HARNESS
TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS:
PLANTING EQUIPMENT:
Planter, 1-row
Planter, 2-row
Fert. dist., 1-row
Vetch drill
Small grain drill
CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT:
Gee whiz (scratcher)
Joe harrow (top)
Georgia stuck
(single)
Weeder
Fowler cultivator
Riding cult., 1-row
Walking cult., 1-row
Walking cult., 2-row
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT:
Mower, 2-horse
Rake, dump
VEHICLES AND
MISCELLANEOUS
EQU IPMENT:
1
1
r
'Based on original new cost.
'Based on farmers' estimates of costs of new parts, replacement items, repair costs,
and 3 service labor.
4 Purchase price divided by estimated total years of useful life.
One-half of the purchase price multiplied by 5 per cent.
26
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
TABLE 18.-AVERAGE ANNUAL USE, RATES OF PERFORMANCE, AND COSTS PER
UNIT OF PERFORMANCE FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF WORKSTOCK EQUIPMENT
ON 367 FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945
Type of equipment
No.
of
items
Annual use
Acres Hours
cov'd used
Acres
r10day
(No.) (Acres) (Hr.) (Acres)
Hours
per
acre
Cost
per
acre
Cost
per
hour
(Hr.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS:
Turn plow, 1-horse
Turn plow, 2-horse
Disk plow
Middlebuster, 1-horse
Middlebuster, 2-horse
Harrow, disk
Harrow, section
Roller
Drag, home-made
171
520
16
20
85
76
220
6
37
11
28
27
13
19
26
53
38
45
55
127
79
32
30
46
48
44
40
2.0
2.2
3.4
4.0
6.3
5.6
11.0
8.7
11.3
5.00
4.54
2.94
2.50
1.59
1.78
.91
1.15
.88
.34
.33
.35
.20
.20
.30
.09
.19
.07
.07
.07
.12
.08
.12
.17
.10
.16
.08
289
97
214
93
13
39
74
38
26
46
63
60
65
43
74
6.2
12.3
5.8
6.1
6.2
1.61
.81
1.72
1.64
1.61
.15
.24
.11
.21
.24
.09
.30
.06
.13
.15
Gee whiz (scratcher) 339
Joe harrow (top)
98
Georgia stock (single) 433
Weeder
19
Fowler cultivator
27
Riding cult., 1-row
27
Walking cult., 1-row
283
Walking cult., 2-row
9
27
24
37
43
23
67
77
60
55
39
73
32
38
98
117
80
4.9
6.1
5.1
13.6
6.0
6.8
6.6
7.5
2.04
1.64
1.96
.74
1.67
1.47
1.52
1.33
.14
.10
.09
.10
.20
.23
.17
.21
.07
.06
.05
.14
.12
.16
.11
.16
164
158
31
30
40
21
7.8
14.1
1.28
.71
.60
.21
.46
.30
13
8
30
.57
.21
1.22
1.30
.16
.14
.38
.09
.13
.11
.07
PLANTING EQUIPMENT:
Planter, 1-row
Planter, 2-row
Fert. dist., 1-row
Vetch drill
Small grain drill
CULTIVATING EQUIPMENT:
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT:
Mower, 2-horse
Rake, dump
VEHICLES AND
MISCELLANEOUS
EQUIPMENT:
Hay baler, stat.
Lime spreader
Wagon, 2-horse
Stalk cutter, 1-row
Stalk cutter, 2-row
Slip scoop
116
276
25
44
53
20
38
-
17
217
54
49
21
-.
17.5
23
828.2
7.7
data, however, can be useful to farmers particularly in farm
planning, such as making needed adjustments in organization,
evaluating the relative merits of tractor and workstock power
on a given farm, and in planning a farming system to combat the
influences of high farm wages, labor shortages, and high production costs.
The data in Table 18 indicate, in general, that as more work
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
27
COSTS
is done with a particular implement its average cost per unit
of use declines. These data show that larger implements usually
accomplish more work in a given amount of time, that costs per
acre are usually lower, and that costs per hour are usually higher
than when using smaller implements.
The most effective means of lowering costs per acre and costs
per hour is to increase the amount of annual use of implements.
Annual depreciation costs might be lowered by extending the
life of implements through better care. Timeliness of making
adjustments and repairs and the necessary lubrication are also
important in keeping down annual repair and upkeep costs.
What do the total farm machinery operating costs per farm
for workstock-drawn machinery amount to each year in this
area? Total costs (exclusive of workstock and labor costs) will
depend upon: (1) total investment in such machinery; (2) age,
expected useful life, and state of repair of each implement;
(3) efficiency with which each implement is operated; (4) annual use of each implement; and (5) care taken in properly
servicing, operating, and storing each implement.
Total annual expenses for operating workstock-drawn equipment in northern Alabama averaged less than $100 per farm in
1945. It was slightly higher on farms where both tractors and
workstock were used than on farms operated only with workstock. Average expenses amounted to $2.07 per crop acre, and
to 5 cents per hour of workstock use on farms operated only
with workstock. Where both tractors and workstock were used,
average expenses amounted to 68 cents per crop acre, and to
7 cents per hour of workstock use, Table 19.
TABLE
19.-COST OF OPERATING ALL WORKSTOCK-DRAWN
FARMS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA, 19451
On farms operated with
workstock power only
Item
Repairs and upkeep
Depreciation
Interest
Taxes, housing, ins.
Total
Cost
per hour
of W/S
use
Cost
per
acre in
crops
Annual
cost
per
farm
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
.021
.016
.007
.006
.050
.89
.68
.27
.23
2.07
'Excludes workstock and labor costs.
ON
On farms operated with
workstock and tractors
Annual
cost
per
farm
39
30
12
10
91
MACHINERY
42
33
12
10
97
Cost
per hour
of W/S
use
Cost
per
acre in
crops
(Dol.)
(Dol.)
.031
.025
.009
.007
.072
.29
.23
.09
.07
.68
28
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT
STATION
SUMMARY
Maximum economies made possible through mechanization
can be realized only when all available equipment is used at near
capacity. For this reason, larger farms are usually the first to
mechanize. In northern Alabama, cropland acreage per farm
averaged more than twice as much for tractor-operated farms
as it did for workstock-operated farms in 1945. In addition, cropland acreage handled per family was nearly twice as great on
tractor farms as on workstock farms.
The 1945 inventory value of farm power and equipment on
northern Alabama farms averaged $1,447 per farm for tractor
farms, $2,094 per farm on farms using both tractors and workstock, and $603 per farm for workstock farms. This represented
an average investment of $14.47, $14.65, and $13.70 per crop
acre for the respective groups.
The average cost of operating all farm tractors in this area
in 1945 was 52 cents per hour of use. This does not include
the wages of the tractor driver. Costs per hour varied by size of
tractor, type of power used on farms, type of work performed,
and the amount of annual use.
Average costs of operating small tractors were 44 cents per
hour, medium tractors 54 cents per hour, and large tractors 62
cents per hour. Small tractors were used in 1945 an average of
681 hours, medium tractors 842 hours, and large tractors 907
hours.
Operating costs for tractors on farms operated with tractor
power only averaged 46 cents per hour. On farms where both
tractors and workstock were used, tractor costs averaged 56 cents
per hour. The average hours of use were 825 and 772 for the
respective groups.
Variation in tractor costs by type of work performed is indicated by fuel requirements per 10-hour day for different types
of work. Fuel consumption averaged 17.1 gallons per 10-hour
day for heavy drawbar work, 12.4 gallons for light drawbar work,
and 11.7 gallons for belt work.
Tractors used less than 400 hours annually were operated at
a cost of 95 cents per hour; from 400 to 800 hours, 64 cents;
FARM
POWER
and
EQUIPMENT
COSTS
29
from 800 to 1,200 hours, 51 cents; and over 1,200 hours, 37 cents
an hour.
The average annual cost of operating tractor-drawn machinery
was $255 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945 for farms operated with tractors only, and was $197 per farm for those operated
with both tractors and workstock. This represented a cost of
$2.55 and $1.38 per crop acre for the respective groups.
More than one-third of the useful years of life of all tractordrawn equipment on northern Alabama farms have been spent.
The average age of all tractor equipment was 4.6 years, while
the average total years of useful life was estimated to be 12.7
years.
Net annual workstock costs averaged $227.06 per head in
northern Alabama in 1945. Feed charges, including pasture,
comprised nearly 70 per cent of the total costs, excluding credit
for manure. Costs varied widely by type of power used on farms,
and by the amount of annual use. Average costs for all workstock in the area amounted to 37 cents per hour of use in 1945.
On farms operated with workstock only, workstock costs averaged 31 cents per hour. On farms where both workstock and
tractors were used, workstock costs averaged 46 cents per hour.
The average hours of use were 760 and 480 for the respective
groups.
Workstock that were used less than 500 hours annually cost
an average of $1.04 per hour of use; from 500 to 700 hours, 39
cents; from 700 to 900 hours, 30 cents; from 900 to 1,100 hours,
25 cents; and over 1,100 hours, 17 cents per hour.
The average annual cost of operating workstock-drawn equipment was less than $100 per farm in northern Alabama in 1945.
This represented a cost of $2.07 per acre in crops on farms operated with workstock only and 68 cents per acre in crops on
farms operated with both tractors and workstock.
More than half of the useful years of life of all workstockdrawn equipment on northern Alabama farms have been spent.
The average age of all workstock equipment was 9.1 years, and
the average total years of useful life was estimated to be 17.3
years.
In northern Alabama, this study indicates that, on the average,
each tractor in this area has replaced an average of 4.5 head of
workstock. It indicates that, on the basis of average amounts
of work performed in 1945, each tractor should have replaced
30
ALABAMA
AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT STATION
approximately 5 head of workstock. It indicates that, on the basis
of potential capacity of power and equipment on farms in 1945,
each tractor could have replaced approximately 6 head of workstock.
Data on rates of performance for both tractor-drawn and workstock-drawn equipment indicate, in general that:
1) Cost per unit of performance declines as the amount of
annual use increases.
2) Larger equipment usually accomplishes more work in
a given amount of time than smaller equipment.
3) Costs per acre covered are usually lower when using
larger equipment than when using smaller equipment.
4) Costs per hour of use are usually higher when using
larger equipment than when using smaller equipment.
APPENDIX TABLE A.-DISTRIBUTION
OF MAKES AND MODELS OF TRACTORS BY SIZE AS FOUND
NORTHERN ALABAMA, 1945'
John Deere
John Deere
John Deere
Model
Mae
Mae
Mdl
Mdl
'17
(Rated over 24 h.p. on drawbar)
(Rated 18-24 h.p. on drawbar)
Drawbar
h.p.
rated
OPERATION ON FARMS IN
Large tractors
Medium tractors
Small tractors
(Rated less than 18 h.p. on drawbar)
Make
IN
Mk
Mk
Model
Drawbar
h.p. rated
Deere
Deere
Deere
Deere
A
AR
G
D
26
26
28
28
-Drawbar
hp. rated
0
m
John Deere
H
LA
9
12
13
McC-D Farmall
McC-D Farmall
McC-D Farmall
McC-D Farmall
H
21
McC-D Farmall
McC-D Farmall
M
MD
31
31
10
B
13
15
15
McC-Deering
McC-Deering
F12
F14
12
15
McC-Deering
F20
21
McC-Deering
F30
25
-I
Allis-Chalmers
Allis-Chalmers
Allis-Chalmers
B
C
RC
13
16
15
Allis-Chalmers
wC
20
Allis-Chalmers
H
26
Oliver
60
17
Oliver
70
20
Oliver
80
30
Case
Case
VC
SC
19
19
Case
Case
D
DC
31
33
Caterpillar
D2
25
M-Moline
M-Moline
GT
33
48
Ford
L
17
Fordson
M-Moline
B. F. Avery
Ford-Ferguson
B
18
John
John
John
John
19
20
C
m
16
17
'Based on official Nebraska Tractor Tests, as reported in "The Tractor Field Book," Farm Implement News Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1946.
w
R
530
$y.